:: Volume 20, Issue 3 (7-2022) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2022, 20(3): 537-541 Back to browse issues page
Effectiveness of postoperative radiotherapy excluding the common iliac lymph nodes in patients with node-negative cervical carcinoma
T. Saito-Zama , R. Mikami , T. Itonaga , M. Okubo , S. Sugahara , K. Saito
Department of Radiology, Tokyo Medical University, 6-7-1, Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, Japan , mikami-r@tokyo-med.ac.jp
Abstract:   (1007 Views)
Background: To evaluate whether excluding the common iliac lymph nodes from the clinical target volume (CTV) during radiotherapy is effective in node-negative patients after cervical cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2017, 29 patients who underwent radiotherapy after curative surgery for cervical carcinoma were included in this study. We included 19 and 10 patients in the CTV group with common iliac lymph nodes (CTVL) and those without (CTVs), respectively. We retrospectively investigated the correlation among CTV, treatment outcome, and adverse events. Results: The median follow-up period was 30.4 (range, 2–55) months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the CTVL group were 95.0% and 85.0%, respectively, and those of the CTVs group were 100% and 88.9%, respectively. The 3-year OS and PFS rates were not significantly different between both groups (log-rank; P=0.414 and 0.657, respectively). Three CTVL patients and 1 CTVs patient had recurrences. However, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between both groups (P=1.0). Conclusion: CTV excluding the common iliac lymph nodes in postoperative radiotherapy may be effective in patients with node-negative postoperative cervical cancer.
 
 
Keywords: Clinical target volume, postoperative radiotherapy, cervical carcinoma, common iliac lymph nodes, treatment outcome.
Full-Text [PDF 1432 kb]   (438 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. 1. Li X, Yin Y, Sheng X (2015) Distribution pattern of lymph node metastases and its implication in individualized radiotherapeutic clinical target volume delineation of regional lymph nodes in patients with stage IA to IIA cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol, 10: 40. [DOI:10.1186/s13014-015-0352-5] [PMID] []
2. Abu-Rustum NR and Yashar CM (2021) National comprehensive cancer network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Cervical Cancer. version 1. 2021. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf. Accessed [October 2, 2020].
3. Rotman M, Sedlis A, Piedmonte MR (2006) A Phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 65:169-176. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.10.019] [PMID]
4. Ohara K, Tsunoda H, Nishida M (2003) Use of small pelvic field instead of whole pelvic field in postoperative radiotherapy for node-negative, high-risk stages I and II cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 13: 170-176. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-00009577-200303000-00012 [DOI:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13014.x] [PMID]
5. Rose BS, Aydogan B, Liang Y (2011) Normal tissue complication probability modeling of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 79(3): 800-807. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.010] [PMID] []
6. Mell LK, Tiryaki H, Ahn KH (2008) Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 71(5): 1504-1510. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.046] [PMID]
7. Chen MF, Tseng CJ, Tseng CC (2007) Clinical outcome in posthysterectomy cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent Cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy: comparison with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 67: 1438-1444. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.11.005] [PMID]
8. Small W Jr, Bosch WR, Harkenrider MM (2021) NRG Oncology/RTOG consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity modulated pelvic radiation therapy in postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer: An update. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 109: 413-424. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.061] [PMID] []
9. Kasuya G, Toita T, Furutani K (2013) Distribution patterns of metastatic pelvic lymph nodes assessed by CT/MRI in patients with uterine cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol, 8: 139. [DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-8-139] [PMID] []
10. Mauch P, Constine L, Greenberger J (1995) Hematopoietic stem cell compartment: Acute and late effects of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 31: 1319-1339. [DOI:10.1016/0360-3016(94)00430-S] [PMID]
11. Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC (2006) Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 66: 1356-1365. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.018] [PMID]
12. Lewis S, Chopra S, Naga P (2018) Acute hematological toxicity during post-operative bowel sparing image-guided intensity modulated radiation with concurrent cisplatin. Br J Radiol, 91: 20180005. [DOI:10.1259/bjr.20180005] [PMID] []
13. Hayman JA, Callahan JW, Herschtal A (2011) Distribution of proliferating bone marrow in adult cancer patients determined using FLT-PET imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 79: 847-852. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.040] [PMID]
14. Ohara K, Tsunoda H, Satoh T (2004) Use of the small pelvic field instead of the classic whole pelvic field in postoperative radiotherapy for cervical cancer: reduction of adverse events. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 60: 258-264. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.023] [PMID]

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 20, Issue 3 (7-2022) Back to browse issues page